via Press Release.
During the recent tests, nine LRLAPs were successfully fired at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. These tests were designed to demonstrate accuracy, reliability, lethality, and time of arrival control. In addition, six of the nine rounds were subjected to an environmental qualification, which included temperature variation and vibration tests that proved the LRLAP’s reliability after exposure to different transportation situations and storage environments. Test requirements were met or exceeded, and all objectives were successfully demonstrated.Missiles aren't cost effective for most targets. Aircraft might not (probably not in the future...yeah lookin at you F-35) be available. Which means that for Marines and Army units operating in the Pacific, naval guns are more important than ever.
“I am incredibly proud of the success our team has had on this crucial development program,” said Chris Hughes, vice president and general manager of Weapon Systems at BAE Systems. “We have made significant progress in qualifying the LRLAP in support of the deployment of the Advanced Gun System aboard the DDG 1000. The LRLAP will provide the Navy with an affordable, ship-launched alternative to currently used missiles.” BAE Systems’ 155-mm LRLAP is effective against a variety of targets in multiple mission areas. The LRLAP is guided by a GPS and Inertial Measurement Unit, allowing for high levels of accuracy at ranges up to, and in excess of, 63 nautical miles. This capability reduces costs by requiring fewer rounds to achieve desired effects on targets and is effective where collateral damage is an issue.
Looks like we're finally taking a step toward seeing a real rebirth in the field...bout time.
Neat, seems much more promising for naval operations than the F-35... I wonder (just spitballing here)... assuming the threat could be detected, could it be used with an airburst warhead as a sort of intermediate range air defense round? I suppose a manned aircraft would likely be able to avoid it but what about against a cruise missile or UAV? What does being able to lob something 63nm work out to in straight line range? Ok let the derision of my maritime tactics and weapons ideas commence, after all when it comes to these things my expertise consists of being a Mech Grunt with copies of Harpoon and Hunt for Red October...
ReplyDeletei don't know if thats far fetched. the italians made a 76mm rapid fire and eventually you're going to see it with larger projectiles. the main problem is charge setting but i bet that can be solved and you will simple load single cased shells to hit targets close and far. that opens things up to a large 155mm cannon being automated and then it becomes easier to see it being used in an anti-aircraft role...
Deletei mean the germans did it with their 88...why can't we.
Also, could one fit on the LCS? Would make me feel a little better about those things....
DeleteOdd it seems that everyone has forgotten that the AGS was a joint program, hence its 155mm size. In the Army it was called "XM297E2 cannon" on the XM2001 Crusader. 10 - 12 Round per minute burst rate or 5 rounds per minute until out of ammo, thanks to its water cooled barrel. The autoloader had access to 48 rounds and 48 could be down range in 10 minutes. Amazing vehicle it is still at Fort Sill.
Deletei knew about the crusader but didn't know it was a joint program...you just gave me a blast from the past write up.
DeleteHey, seems like good news, maybe the Army and Marines can still get a usable cannon out of this sometime down the road too
DeleteSorry to disappoint but at these performance specifications (150KM+ @ 10RPM) and given the emergence of 127MM Vulcan munitions (100KM+range at 35Rds/min) I I feel like the USA should wait for rail-guns. The per unit cost of 3.45B excluding development costs is very expensive relative to what you get. Now if they were to design a squadron of larger nuclear powered battleship akin to the soviet nuclear cruisers (but with guns not missiles and the best in modern armour technology) with sufficent firepower, armour and CIWS to force open (level the surrounding settlements) of strategic naval straights after naval aviation has killed the ASW missiles then that would be a different story. Especially if these terror weapons carrier nuclear artillery shells.
ReplyDelete>Say for example the straights at Singapore, the panama/suez canal, persian gulf or any choke-point that could potentially be controlled by hostile forces. Hell deploy a squadron of the coast of somalia (pirateland) for use in diplomacy. Hell make a missile variant and deploy them in sqaurdrons of 2Gun-1Miss, two squadrons, three at the most with 50 year service lifes.
Couple of points you need to know. Vulcano has less than half the range of AGS. Vulcano is also a submunition and carries a fraction of the payload of the AGS round. AGS can run fully automated until is exhausts its complete store of ammo while Vulcano 127mm cannons require significant manpower to run.
DeleteSo no, there is little to no comparison between 127mm vulcano and AGS.
I disagree, the zumwalt was justified by providing a fire-support role that the navy no longer possessed, however the Vulcano munitions greatly revives that capability. The Vulcano system on a Otobreda 127/64LW delivers payloads to a range of 120KM which compares favorably with that of the Zumwalts 150KM and is able to deliver 100KG of payload per minute compared to the zumwalts 110KG(91%) per minute (per gun). Furthermore due to engagement range limitations the Zumwalt is a LCS, compared to other LCS its price-deliverable payload per minute is very high. The Zumwalt is just NOT COST EFFECTIVE nor does it offer capabilities currently not provided with existent systems.
Deletehttp://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5-64_LW.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Land_Attack_Projectile
A very large number of ships carry the 5" gun; only a few hyper-expensive Zumwalts will have the 6" gun. The Zumwalts will be too expensive to risk in the littorals and thus will have to stand off much further, negating their range advantage but keeping their disadvantage of that there never will be one when you need one.
DeleteThere's only going to be what, three Zumwalts and the rule of thumb is that to keep one ship on station you need three: one on station, one in transit and one being refitted. So figure one Zumwalt available for fire support in the entire world.
One of the differences between AGS and Vulcano is that Vulcano might actually be available when and where you need it.
Not too mention that the zumwalt ships lack the CIWS and Air defense systems required to operate in opposed littoral waters (which outrage their gun systems), nor do they have the legs to self-deploy and operate in such zones[requiring more ships and a higher-pership cost]. The USN Needs a high-low approach for LCS operations, something like a Ada-Formidable class frigates with 127mm cannons supported by something like the absalon ships for mine-warfare/assault and some larger ships.
DeleteOnce again, the AGS ammunition has a maximum effective range over 50% greater than the Vulcano and packs a warhead significantly more powerful than the Vulcano warhead (close to an order of magnitude). And if you were to do a ranged reduced projectile to match the Vulcano range, the payload would almost double. AGS is simply a much more effective system than a 5" gun with Vulcano. Vulcano sacrifices significant payload in order to use a sub-caliber projectile that contain bursting charges close to 76mm projectile bursting charges (<1 kg bursting charges). The AGS LRRAP round contains an 11KG bursting charge which is over 3x larger than the bursting charge in 127mm/5" ammunition. This puts into serious doubt that actual validity of your payload comparison btw, its is almost assuredly comparing apples to oranges (likely total warhead weight totals for Vulcano to bursting charge only weight totals for LRLAP, and means that the bursting charge of the LRLAP is bigger than the total warhead weight for the vulcano!)..
DeleteAnd trying to say that the Zumwalt doesn't offer new capabilities is beyond a lie. There is no other naval ship in existence or actual planning that can deliver the level of NGFS that the Zumwalt can. The combination of the two guns plus ~1000 rounds of ammo present more close to an order of magnitude more effect down range than is available from any other navy ship with any other current gun system. And it does this at 50% greater range than any other existing system.
And in addition, if the Zumwalt cannot survive at its engagement range, then any ship using Vulcano would be sunk before it even got into its engagement range. The Zumwalt signatures are less than any other naval combatant in existence currently and its weapons have 50% more range.
And as far as cost effectiveness, no USN navy combatant being built is cost effective. Certainly not FLT III burkes. And FLT IIA burkes don't have significantly higher signatures than the Zumwalts.
The Zumwalts have rather significant AAW SDS. They are capable of handling up to 320 ESSM for point defense against ASCM. In addition, the Zumwalts have 2 MK 110 cannons that are fully capable and planned to handle CIWS duties using the 3P 57mm round. The SDS capabilities of the Zumwalts are pretty good. Granted, it is unlikely that the Zumwalt will dedicate all 80 VLS cells to ESSM, but I would wager that they plan on at least using 16 VLS cells to support 64 ESSM.
DeleteAs far as deployment range, the Zumwalts have as much range as everything less than the nuclear powered USN ships. At standard cruising speed they should have a range close to 8K nm which should be sufficient.
Yet the Otobreda 127/64LW with Vulcano achieves 91% of the payload per minute (according to navy weps) and has 80% of the range as the Advanced Gun System turrets (tested not claimed). Additionally it carries only 83.33% of the Mk41 VLS capacity of the burkes. The total program cost is in excess of 17.35Bn which would buy about 10 Arleigh Burkes or two+ carriers at present US costs (not that i would use those in the littoral zone either) or about 70 Ada-class frigates (less if you make a larger version with 127mm guns).
DeleteAs for survivability the Zumwalt class lacks decent CIWS (especially for the size, price and operating environment of the ship) and it only has two slow firing rear mounted guns with bad firing arcs(which is undeniably inferior to RIM-116 against saturation fire and only holds about 30secs of munitions). Compared to Russian cruisers and capital ships it is pathetic. Also it should go without saying that 3 Zumwalts are easier to sink than 70 Ada-frigates or 10 Burkes, and that relying solely on any such large cruisers to seize control of the littoral zone is silly.
Swordship DCNS: A more cost effective LCS fire support ship with 155mm cannons, this would work well in a high-low mix as larger more expensive nuclear powered cruisers (and submarines-especially outdated-retrofitted SSBNs) could replenish its hydrogen fuel-cell stores: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5WOXZknk0
http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Mk-110-naval-gun-system.htm
http://i33.tinypic.com/264kepu.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/xap895.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/1077zaa.jpg
Except that navy weps never says what you attribute to them nor does the math add up to support your assertions. Full caliber 127mm rounds have less than 1/3 the payload as the AGS rounds. Sub-caliber 127mm rounds aren't going to have a larger payload than the full caliber 127mm rounds. QED, you're comparison is incorrect.
DeleteThe range for AGS is 50+% greater than vulcano.
The Zumwalt carries 80 VLS cells of which the vast majority are dedicated to land attack. The VLS cells of a burke are primarily focused on the fleet wide AAW role. The amount of burke cells dedicated to land attack is miniscule.
The Zumwalt has an except point defense system provided by ESSM and SM3. In addition, the Zumwalt has 2 57mm cannons firing proximity fused air burst charges as a final line of defense. The Mk110 is fully capable of CIWS work. And it doesn't matter if SEARAM would be better than the Mk110s, because the proper comparison is with the ESSM.
And now you are spinning fantasy ships. Good luck with that. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised as it goes along with the myriad fantasy number you've been throwing around.
Excuse me, the AGS only has about 25% extra range, the numbers you cite are a goal not a reality like the desired rate of fire(look at the actual test figures). It's MK110 guns provide no coverage to the forward of the ship, are inferior to RIM-116 against saturation fire and do not provide sufficient coverage for a ship of that cost/size operating in such hazardous littoral zones. Those ESSMS that most western ships possess in addition to CIWS are not a CIWS replacement, CIWS is a close in system with different engagement characteristics and compliments area defense missiles like ESSMs. Every major navy in the world disagrees with your idea that you don't need CIWS.
DeleteThe Zumwalt is the F35 of ships, it is under-performing, overdue, over-budget, in a death spiral as far as costs are concerned and is consuming the navies budget. In terms of price:performance it is simply unacceptable with each ship approaching the total cost of a 110,000+ Tonne aircraft carrier. Apart from their being better places for that money to have gone the US doesnt have a proper fleet of littoral combat ships to secure an opposed littoral zone unless you believe the arleigh burkes (cruisers) should go within 300KMs of the shore (presumably without CIWS and half full of 1500KM+ cruise missiles). Now I am sure that the chinese, russians or whomever you plan to attack with these ships are more than capable of destroying 3 unescorted ships within range of their coastal batteries and without effective CIWS.
As for the kirov class crusiers I assure you that they are not a fantasy, they carry many nuclear ASMs, area-defence missiles, ciws etc..etc.. and comprise a very serious threat. It is also not a fantasy for the us to build equivalents, or to reactivate a modernized version of an old class of ships, both of which was to an extent exactly what the CGX envisioned. Nor is it a fantasy to build two variants of a ship/plane or vehicle in general along the same hull/chasis. Furthermore the Swordship is one example of an altogether better idea than the Zumwalt in its present configuration and at its present cost (sharing synergies with nuclear capital ships). Lastly the US needs a high-low approach, capital ships need screens and there are many roles in littoral warfare for which a 1.8Bn cruiser are simply not needed, are in too much danger to be a financially viable way to conduct war in the littoral zone and are far easier to sink than a half dozen or so cheaper ships.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5-64_LW.htm
Delete>Accuracy is said to be better than 20 meters; payload performance is designed to deliver 100 kg. (220 lb.)/min. over a 1-hr. sustained period, 200 kg./min. over a 3-min. period and 300 kg./min. over a 10-sec. salvo.
Less hyperbole and more reality might help your arguments.
DeleteFirst of all, several navies are using medium caliber guns for CIWS, notable among them is the Italian Navy. The new modern anti-air munitions fired by these medium caliber guns are widely considered better defense than things like 20-30mm cannon spraying and praying. The same people that make and provide all the data for Vulcano are also the ones behind the newer generation of 3P ammo used for CIWS purposes with medium guns.
If it is determined that the Zumwalts need even more CIWS capabilities, then they can be added (SEARAM has a VLS variant coming, fyi), but you are making an incorrect assumption that the Zumwalts don't have a reasonable level of CIWS.
The AGS has demonstrated range performance 50% farther than Vulcano has.
The Zumwalt is the only viable solution for the NGFS requirement. And the Zumwalt costs no where near the cost of an aircraft carrier. A modern super carrier is running around 12-13 billion. The Zumwalts are running in the 3-3.5 billion range and in line with the cost of FLT III burkes. The Zumwalt, in addition, has an incredibly small signature, it has the smallest radar signature of any vessel in the entire US fleet (and that includes small combatant vessels!). The Zumwalt has more than enough capability to be able to handle itself withing 80 nmi of the shore. And you are making an incorrect assumption that Zumwalts would walk into a fight without any pre-work. We've always sent in aviation assets to knock out C&C and radar facilities before sending in ship to bombard in preparation or support of amphibious landings.
Its highly unlikely that any current Kirov-class is carrying any nuclear armed AShMs. The Kirov class is a massive missile boat but also has massive maintenance issues and cost issues. And the only reason the USSR even built and designed the Kirov-class was because they didn't have a viable CVN design, so the Kirov-class had to stand in for that role. The US has viable CVN designs and many many CVNs. A Kirov-class also would make a horrible NGFS replacement as well.
And you can quote all the data you want about Vulcano, but the simple fact is that a full caliber 127mm/5" shell has around a 3-4KG bursting charge. The Vulcano is a pretty significant sub-caliber and won't even be able to have that much of a bursting charge. Warhead weight and burst charge size for the 127mm Vulcano are in line with full caliber 76mm shells. In stark contrast, the LRRAP warhead is of the same size and lethality as 155mm artillery. The warhead of an LRRAP alone weighs more than an entire 127mm shell + propellent + cartridge. AKA its an order of magnitude difference. And FYI, the marines determined and have been pretty adamant that 5" guns don't pack enough punch for NGFS even if they could match the range requirements.
Yeah right 3 ships for a total of 6 guns. Like they can make a BIG difference in major conflict.
ReplyDelete